none that lives in any outward sin, but none that is under the power of anger or pride, no lover of the world, in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of his church.

29. Can any thing then be more absurd, than for men to cry out, "The Church! The Church!" and to pretend to be very zealous for it, and violent defenders of it, while they themselves have neither part nor lot therein, nor indeed know what the church is! And yet the hand of God is in this very thing! Even in this his wonderful wisdom appears, directing their mistake to his own glory, and causing "the earth to help the woman." Imagining that they are members of it themselves, the men of the world frequently defend the church: otherwise the wolves that surround the little flock on every side would in a short time tear them in. pieces. And for this very reason, it is not wise to provoke them more than is unavoidable. Even on this ground, let us, if it be possible, as much as lieth in us, "live peaceably with all men.' Especially as we know not how soon God may call them too out of the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of his dear Son.

30. In the mean time, let all those who are real members of the church see that they walk holy and unblamable in all things. "Ye are the light of the world!" Ye are 66 a city set upon a hill," and "cannot be hid." Oh, "let your light shine before men!" Show them your faith by your works. Let them see, by the whole tenor of your conversation, that your hope is all laid up above! Let all your words and actions evidence the spirit whereby you are animated! Above all things, let your love abound. Let it extend to every child of man: let it overflow to every child of God. By this let all men know whose disciples ye are, because you "love one another."

12

245

SERMON LXXV.

ON SCHISM.

"That there might be no schism in the body."—1 Cor. xii. 25.

1. If there be any word in the English tongue as ambiguous and indeterminate in its meaning as the word Church, it is one that is nearly allied to it,-the word Schism. It has been the subject of innumerable disputes for several hundred years; and almost innumerable books have been written concerning it in every part of the Christian world. A very large share of these have been published in our country; particularly during the last century, and the beginning of the present: and persons of the strongest understanding, and the most consummate learning, have exhausted all their strength upon the question, both in conversation and writing. This has appeared to be more necessary than ever, since the grand separation of the Reformed from the Romish Church. This is a charge which the members of that church never fail to bring against all that separate from her; and which, consequently, has employed the thoughts and pens of the most able disputants on both sides. And those of each side have generally, when they entered into the field, been secure of victory; supposing the strength of their arguments was so great, that it was impossible for reasonable men to resist them.

2. But it is observable that exceeding little good has been done by all these controversies. Very few of the warmest and ablest disputants have been able to convince their opponents. After all that could be said, the Papists are Papists, and the Protestants are Protestants still. And the same success has attended those who have so vehemently disputed about separation from the Church of England. Those who separated from her

2

were eagerly charged with schism; they as eagerly denied the charge; and scarce any were able to convince their opponents, either on one side or the other.

:

3. One great reason why this controversy has been so unprofitable, why so few of either side have been convinced, is this: they seldom agreed as to the meaning of the word concerning which they disputed and if they did not fix the meaning of this, if they did not define the term before they began disputing about it, they might continue to dispute to their lives' end, without getting one step forward; without coming a jot nearer to each other than when they first set out.

4. Yet it must be a point of considerable importance, or St. Paul would not have spoken so seriously of it. It is, therefore, highly needful that we should consider, I. The nature, and,

II. The evil of it.

I. 1. It is the more needful to do this, because, among the numberless books that have been written upon the subject, both by the Romanists and Protestants, it is difficult to find any that define it in a scriptural manner. The whole body of Roman Catholics define schism, a separation from the Church of Rome; and almost all our own writers define it, a separation from the Church of England. Thus both the one and the other set out wrong, and stumble at the very threshold. This will easily appear to any that calmly consider the several texts wherein the word "schism" occurs; from the whole tenor of which it is manifest that it is not a separation from any church, (whether general or particular, whether the catholic, or any national church,) but a separation in a church.

2. Let us begin with the first verse, wherein St. Paul makes use of the word. It is the tenth verse of the first chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The words are, "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms" (the original word is oxiouara) "among you." Can any thing be more plain than that the schisms here spoken of were not separations from,

but divisions in, the church of Corinth? Accordingly it follows, "But that ye be perfectly united together, in the same mind and in the same judgment.' You see here, that an union in mind and judgment was the direct opposite to the Corinthian schism. This, consequently, was not a separation from the church or Christian society at Corinth; but a separation in the church; a disunion in mind and judgment, (perhaps also in affection,) among those who, notwithstanding this, continued outwardly united as before.

3. Of what nature this schism at Corinth was, is still more clearly determined (if any thing can be more clear) by the words that immediately follow: "Now this I say,"-this is the schism of which I speak; you are divided into separate parties; some of you speaking in favour of one, some of another preacher, "Every one of you saith," (verse 12,) "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," or Peter. Who then does not see that the schism for which the apostle here reproves the Corinthians is neither more nor less than the splitting into several parties, as they gave the preference to one or another preacher. And this species of schism there will be occasion to guard against in every religious community.

4. The second place where the apostle uses this word is in the eighteenth verse of the eleventh chapter of this Epistle: "When ye come together in the church," the Christian congregation, "I hear that there are divisions" (the original word here also is oxiguara, schisms) "among you." But what were these schisms? The apostle immediately tells you: (verse 20:) "When you come together," professing your design is "to eat of the Lord's supper, every one of you taketh before another his own supper," as if it were a common meal. What then was the schism? It seems, in doing this, they divided into little parties, which cherished anger and resentment one against another, even at that solemn season.

5. May it not be observed, (to make a little digression here, for the sake of those who are troubled with needless scruples on this head,) that the sin which the apostle

著

charges on the communicants at Corinth in this chapter is usually quite misunderstood? It was precisely this, and nothing else, "the taking one before another his own supper;" and in such a shocking manner, that while "6 one was hungry, another was drunken." By doing this, he says, "ye eat and drink" (not "damnation;" a vile mistranslation of the word, but) judgment, temporal judgment, "to yourselves;" which sometimes shortened their lives. "For this cause"-for sinning in this vile manner" many are sick and weak among you." Observe here two things: First, What was the sin of the Corinthians? Mark it well, and remember it. It was taking one before another his own supper; so that while one was hungry, another was drunken. Secondly, What was the punishment? It was bodily weakness and sickness; which, without repentance, might end in death. But what is this to you? You cannot commit their sin : therefore, you cannot incur their punishment.

6. But to return. It deserves to be seriously remarked, that in this chapter the apostle uses the word "heresies" as exactly equivalent with the word "schisms." "I hear," says he, (verse 18,) "that there are schisms among you, and I partly believe it:" he then adds, (verse 19,) "For there must be heresies" (another word for the same thing) among you, that they which are approved among you may be made manifest.” As if he had said, "The wisdom of God permits it so to be, for this end, for the clear manifestation of those whose heart is right with him." This word, therefore, (heresy,) which has been so strangely distorted for many centuries, as if it meant erroneous opinions, opinions contrary to the faith delivered to the saints, which has been made a pretence for destroying cities, depopulating countries, and shedding seas of innocent blood,-has not the least reference to opinions, whether right or wrong. It simply means, wherever it occurs in Scripture, divisions, or parties, in a religious community.

7. The third and the only remaining place in this Epistle, wherein the apostle uses this word, is the twenty-fifth